Contents

Talk:Plutonium(IV) oxide

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals: Core Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

Not linear (or bent), and probably unlike most common oxides (see Rutile). how is this stuff made? elements are not capitalized. Smokefoot 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and where does the plutonium oxalate come from?

If I remember correctly, the uranium(VI) and plutonium(IV) are extracted into nitric acid, then the plutonium is precipitated as the oxalate. see Nuclear reprocessing. Physchim62 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please susbtantiate the claim that touching the material can result in serious injury? Of course it can, but not a quick touch? Or? --Kjetil Kjernsmo 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're more likely to be poisoned by it than hurt by the alpha decay. --202.6.116.251 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In section "Synthesis": "Plutonium oxide contamination has resulted in a number of military nuclear accidents where nuclear weapons have burned." I doubt that PuO2 contamination has caused nuclear accidents. But in accidents, Plutonium is likely to burn, making oxide, and to be dispersed, making it contamination. I take that to be the intended meaning. There is an ambiguous association [resulted<->in] : (contamination (resulted in) accidents), vs., ((contamination resulted)(in accidents)). Can we adjust the grammar? jimswen (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be spontanteosly oxidized Pu; thus I believe that phrase did not belong here and moved to plutonium article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the chemical properties box list this as O₂Pu? Nobody ever puts the anion first in a chemical formula. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]